Originally posted by: palehorse74
until she actually steps foot into the white house and quickly learns from her entire National Security and Defense team that withdrawal is not an option... that'll be a h00t!!Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
you mean just when AQ was in the last stage of their master plan to attack the US... after seeing Clinton do nothing after the first 1993 attack... and again after the Cole was hit... and seeing us chased out of Somalia... and the African embassy bombings... and... and... ?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: michaels
We are screwed regardless of what party wins, don't kid yourselves.
Things weren't actually that bad about oh, 6 or 7 years or so ago.
You're right... everything was just peachy.
Quick, who was president when the attacks happened? That's right, Bush. Didn't Rice also ignore OBL? Yep.
Spin baby, spin!!
Thats completely dishonest and you know it. Thats like Hillary winning in 08, and then the day after she takes office, Republicans go blame every single thing that happens in Iraq on her. I have no doubt that some would do that, but do you really want to be associated with that crowd?
Well, actually, Clinton wants a phased withdrawl, so unless something drastic happens, I don't think she'll get any flak for Iraq as President.
bet?
Here is what she specifically said:
"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. ... I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons,''
"How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons."
From here - Text
So you see, she didn't say nukes were or were not on the table. She just said that she didn't wanna talk about it.